Skip to main content
Glama

Set Up Phone System

set_up_phone_system
DestructiveIdempotent

Turn the business's number into a hosted phone system: Kai is installed as extension 700, the owner's mobile joins a team ring group, and a dial plan rings the team first and hands the call to Kai when nobody picks up. Idempotent and resumable — a re-run reuses everything already created and reports it under reused. Needs a complete US street address on file (the emergency-services and tax location) and the owner's mobile: when either is missing the tool fails with code missing_address or missing_owner_mobile plus required_field and next_action saying exactly what to collect — pass it back as business_address or owner_mobile. Returns the status shape (extension, ring group, dial plan ids, the phone-system line) and next_step, the one line to relay to the owner (forward your line here / dial 700 from any office phone). Mirrors POST /api/v1/phone-system action=provision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
personaNoWhich phones the business runs on, if the owner said: cell_only (just the owner's cell) or office (desk phones / an existing office line that will forward in). Shapes next_step; optional.
business_idNoBusiness ID (required when the token can access multiple businesses).
owner_mobileNoThe owner's own mobile number (US). Optional when set_owner_phone already saved one; required when the last attempt returned missing_owner_mobile.
business_addressNoThe business street address to save before provisioning. Optional when a complete address is already on file; required when the last attempt returned missing_address.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNo
codeNoPresent when success is false.
lineNoThe phone-system line (E.164), if a number is attached.
errorNoPresent when success is false
issuesNoAddress fields to correct when code is invalid_address.
reusedNo
createdNo
successYesWhether the tool completed successfully
warningsNo
next_stepNoThe one line to relay to the owner.
business_idNo
next_actionNoWhat to collect and how to retry, when blocked.
provisionedNo
kai_extensionNo
required_fieldNoPresent when setup is blocked on a missing input.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / issues
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Address fields to correct when code is invalid_address.",
      +  "items": {
      +    "properties": {
      +      "field": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "message": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply idempotentHint and destructiveHint; the description adds genuinely useful context: re-runs reuse existing resources and report them under `reused`, and missing-data failures return code/required_field/next_action. It could more explicitly state the destructive effect on an existing phone configuration, but the opening transformation language implies it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and prerequisites, with no filler. The parenthetical explanations and endpoint mirror add detail but make the description somewhat heavy; still, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers prerequisites, failure modes, recovery payloads, return shape, and the customer-facing next_step; the output schema and annotations supply the rest. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and recover from expected failures.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and every parameter already has clear descriptions/enums. The description adds error-recovery semantics (which field to pass when a missing_* code is returned) and clarifies what the returned next_step should contain, going beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact operation ('Turn the business's number into a hosted phone system') and enumerates the concrete artifacts created (extension 700, team ring group, dial plan). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling sub-resource tools like buy_number or add_team_phone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states prerequisites (complete street address and owner's mobile), the failure codes to expect when they are missing, and the retry input to pass back. It does not explicitly contrast with retry_setup or set_owner_phone, but the provisioning boundary is clear enough for an agent to select it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.